New three - judge panel decision looking at Reg 35 and evidence of WRA

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/186967/wp-prime-supplier-contact-details.pdf

I think you can argue him down as Doncaster is in a different contract package area and there is no evidence that the different providers will be providing the same activity.

bexber - 29 April 2015 03:12 PM

Hi all,

I attended a Tribunal User Group last week which discussed the implications of IM.

The judge in attendance advised that in the absence of SSWP providing a list of possible activities, he would refer to a similar list which was published for the Doncaster area—he said this list would be similar to WRA in the North East.

Has anyone seen this list to which he refers? It’s become relevant to a colleague’s Reg 35 appeal.

[The judge also advised the burden of proof for WRA list lies with SSWP but the burden of significant risk lies with the claimant and needs to be backed up with appropriate medical evidence eg. Psychiatrist report.]

Hi Bexber

I was at same meeting and when I got back to the office I had an updated submission from the DWP for a case of mine and lo and behold it contains a list of so called Work Related Activity for the North East (for Avanta and Ingeus). I have never had this before and not at all sure if its the Doncaster List the judge was referring to (to me Doncaster could never be considered North East).

Let me know if you would like a copy

Any chance you could post a copy here?

I’ve attached the list I got recently, for “Skipton and Bradford”. The accompanying DWP response says it is not possible to be certain that all this WRA was available at the relevant time (two years ago, in this case), but the types of WRA “have not changed siginificantly since the introduction of the requirement to undertake work-related on 1.6.11”.

Billy Durrant - 30 April 2015 04:39 PM

Any chance you could post a copy here?

...that’s a much better idea Billy.

DWP North East WRA list for Avanta and Ingeus attached.

It’s important to note that these lists do not meet the test laid down by IM; the UT asked that DWP advised Tribunals what WRA and individual would likely be referred onto; essentially what was likely to be on the Provider generated Action Plan.

A list of all the WRA available in one area does not illustrate what a claimant is likely to be mandated to. It doesn’t even tell us which of the providers they will be referred to.

Dan Manville - 01 May 2015 10:42 AM

It’s important to note that these lists do not meet the test laid down by IM; the UT asked that DWP advised Tribunals what WRA and individual would likely be referred onto; essentially what was likely to be on the Provider generated Action Plan.

A list of all the WRA available in one area does not illustrate what a claimant is likely to be mandated to. It doesn’t even tell us which of the providers they will be referred to.

 

I have only seen the one list above and it does have indicated what the most demanding and least demanding activities are, which I think IM indicated was needed. What I dont think is clear is whether these most/least demanding activities are most/least for the actual client (so I would expect to see this differ for different clients), or are just the most/least demanding on offer generally (ie these will stay the same whatever the client’s limitations are).

bexber - 29 April 2015 03:12 PM

Hi all,

I attended a Tribunal User Group last week which discussed the implications of IM.

The judge in attendance advised that in the absence of SSWP providing a list of possible activities, he would refer to a similar list which was published for the Doncaster area—he said this list would be similar to WRA in the North East.

Has anyone seen this list to which he refers? It’s become relevant to a colleague’s Reg 35 appeal.

[The judge also advised the burden of proof for WRA list lies with SSWP but the burden of significant risk lies with the claimant and needs to be backed up with appropriate medical evidence eg. Psychiatrist report.]

I am not sure that this would cover the ‘get out’ clause in IM where it was held that a tribunal could decide reg. 35 risk absent the info from the department if it was confident that it (i.e. the tribunal itself) had detailed and up-to-date knowledge of the WRA available in its area.

Smacks to me of the judge trying to do the DWP’s work for it.

Lance - 01 May 2015 11:04 AM

Dan Manville - 01 May 2015 10:42 AM

It’s important to note that these lists do not meet the test laid down by IM; the UT asked that DWP advised Tribunals what WRA and individual would likely be referred onto; essentially what was likely to be on the Provider generated Action Plan.

A list of all the WRA available in one area does not illustrate what a claimant is likely to be mandated to. It doesn’t even tell us which of the providers they will be referred to.

 

I have only seen the one list above and it does have indicated what the most demanding and least demanding activities are, which I think IM indicated was needed. What I dont think is clear is whether these most/least demanding activities are most/least for the actual client (so I would expect to see this differ for different clients), or are just the most/least demanding on offer generally (ie these will stay the same whatever the client’s limitations are).

“106. But what the Secretary of State can and should provide is evidence of the types of work-related activity available in each area and by reference thereto what the particular claimant may be required to undertake and those which he considers it would be reasonable for the provider to require the claimant to undertake .”

My Bold’s not working again… They aren’t indicating what might be reasonable for the individual so I can see so it doesn’t meet the threshold.

We are now seeing the attached standard response from SSWP in submissions in our cases ( Maximus is our local provider). There is no attempt in the SSWP submission to adress this standard response to the particular claimant.

I was going to mention EH - single judge I know but adds to the argument.

But yesterday GB was published - as yet unanonymised. Whoops.

http://www.osscsc.gov.uk/judgmentfiles/j4494/CE 4153 2013-00.doc

As there is no evidence that the ESA85 (or conclusions/decision) are sent to the WPP one can’t assume the WPP will take reasonable steps in relation to WRA.

Link for GB seems to be broken - this link should work - http://www.osscsc.gov.uk/Aspx/view.aspx?id=4494

Summary will be in caselaw soon…